[LT Profits]

As BOWL FAVORITES Since 2003

Conference	W	L	P	Pct
ACC        	13	16	0	44.83%
Big 12     	13	13	0	50.00%
Big East   	5	5	0	50.00%
Big Ten   	2	9	0	18.18%
Conference USA	8	3	0	72.73%
Independents	1	0	0	100.00%
MAC       	7	4	0	63.64%
Mountain West	8	4	0	66.67%
Pac-10    	9	9	0	50.00%
SEC        	12	14	3	46.15%
Sun Belt  	1	0	0	100.00%
WAC       	3	5	0	37.50%
				
ALL         	82	82	3	50.00%

As BOWL UNDERDOGS Since 2003

Conference	W	L	P	Pct
ACC        	12	3	1	80.00%
Big 12     	8	13	1	38.10%
Big East   	4	9	0	30.77%
Big Ten   	15	10	0	60.00%
Conference USA	5	16	0	23.81%
Independents	3	4	0	42.86%
MAC       	4	9	0	30.77%
Mountain West	4	4	0	50.00%
Pac-10    	7	3	0	70.00%
SEC        	11	4	1	73.33%
Sun Belt  	2	3	0	40.00%
WAC       	7	4	0	63.64%
				
ALL         	82	82	3	50.00%

Interseting that there is an 82-82 ATS split the last five years between favorites and dogs, so gone are the days when blindly tailing the dogs was profitable.

That said, based on the last five years, fading Big Ten favorites is worth a look, as is tailing dogs from the ACC, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC.

[HedgeHog]

I think I'll just stick to taking all Bowl Dogs +7 and better. That seems to work well.

[fiveteamer]

I'm lovin LSU.

[Chi_archie]

wow big ten and ACC differences from favs to dogs is pretty interesting.

thanks LT

[LT Profits]

I think I'll just stick to taking all Bowl Dogs +7 and better. That seems to work well.

Yeah that has held up well.

40-24, 62.5% since 2003

If you do a cut-off of less than +17:

Bowl dogs between +7 and +16.5 are 40-21, 65.6%

[fiveteamer]

I still like Wake, though.

Wake, Ball State, LSU.

I like these ones so far.

[Dark Horse]

Good stuff. Based on that:

Play on
East Carolina
Rice
Maryland
VaTech
Penn St
Ohio St
Michigan St
Northwestern
Minnesota
LSU
South Carolina

Fade
Iowa
Pittsburgh
Memphis
Tulsa
Buffalo

[The Seer]

I can't remember the figures but it was more profitable to take dogs before New Years Day and play favs in BCS bowls. LT, maybe you have those stats.

[onthewhat]

82 games is a horrible sample size

LT you are going to bury people by posting these stats...its all 50/50 in the long run

[jackpot269]

Thanks LT thats interesting

[Boy Jeenyus]

I think I'll just stick to taking all Bowl Dogs +7 and better. That seems to work well.

I don't know exact statistics, but I believe this angle gets better if you take dogs of >+7 and exclude those whose opponents are off of back to back SU & ATS wins.

[LT Profits]

82 games is a horrible sample size

LT you are going to bury people by posting these stats...its all 50/50 in the long run

Math not your strong suit?

[HedgeHog]

I recall a great thread on this last year. I believe I went 5-0 on Big Dogs prior to New Year's Day last year.

[spongerat]

Yeah that has held up well.

40-24, 62.5% since 2003

If you do a cut-off of less than +17:

Bowl dogs between +7 and +16.5 are 40-21, 65.6%

don't line makers know this though? and compensate when they set a line? i dunno, this is my first year betting bowls

[LT Profits]

don't line makers know this though? and compensate when they set a line? i dunno, this is my first year betting bowls

Yes they do, but they are still making money on these games because Bowl season brings out square bettors that haven't bet all year, and squares like to be favorites of -7 or more.

[spongerat]

ah true, thanks

[ZBOIZ]

Good stuff LT

[Kingctb27]

Useful.